4 ms·

How is it implied that she is not a programmer? I didn't see that at all. Also I didn't see that she is employed to "welcome men" in the ad. That is just femini

How is it implied that she is not a programmer? I didn't see that at all. Also I didn't see that she is employed to "welcome men" in the ad. That is just feminist glasses making you see things like that. She could just be working there and be happy to get another capable colleague.

varjag 13y ago
> How is it implied that she is not a programmer? It's in the text. "More programmers to care for". The programmer in the text is male, not gender neutral. The picture shows a model performing intimate function (most would consider a hug and a touch on the chest intimate) on a male doing white-collar work. Unless you are specifically set on splitting hairs, there isn't much to argue about here.
- knowitall 13y ago
  Huh? I'm not a native speaker, but I think "programmers" is a gender neutral expression. No doubt the ad is targeted at men, but that alone doesn't make it sexist.
  - varjag 13y ago
    1. It can be inferred the photo illustrates "caring" for programmers, as accompanying text suggests. 2. The programmer mentioned in the text is male (mentioned once by name and then as "He is seen here welcomed back"). Welcoming back obviously consists of caressing his body, which supports point 1. Now I make no statements about cultural circumstances, tradition, the zeitgeist of the 60s and so on. Just that sexism is objective concept denoting unequal treatment of genders, and this photo is steretoypically sexist; so much in fact that it's hopeless to even play No True Scotsman here.
    - knowitall 13y ago
      As I said, it is an ad targeted at men, and I admit it plays to some stereotypes. However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes". The message is simply "become a programmer and women will like you" - a message that would appeal to men. For women there would have to be another ad. Probably there wasn't one - I don't claim the 70ies weren't biased. Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today.
      - varjag 13y ago
        > However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes". Nor do I. That would've been misogynistic, and my whole initial point was this ad is sexist but not misogynistic. > Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today. I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today (although there's a whole subgenre of porn about it).
        knowitall 13y ago
        "I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today" Lol - I meant without the caressing. The caressing part is obviously over the top, which is typical for advertising. I don't think anybody responding to that app would expect to actually be caressed by women. There are ads were people's clothes fly off because somebody chews a chewing gum. Of course the sexism police will think they are sexist, too, but I'd suggest it is also owed to the shortness of the spots. It's not easy to say "women/men will love you" in a few seconds without being ridiculous. I'd just like to question the idea that showing a person as sexually attractive is demeaning or reducing that person to whatever. It's just one aspect of life.
moron4hire 13y ago
"He is seen here being welcomed back", in an overtly provocative pose. "More programmers to care for", indicating that this is her duty in the company, to "care" for the programmers. And it doesn't matter if it was meant to be parsed that way. No, the add doesn't outright say "We hire prostitutes to suck your dick at your desk." It doesn't have to say that. But it is being parsed that way by a large number of people. From the looks of this thread, you are in the minority of people who think it is not that way. So what is the difference if it was or was not meant to make a female viewer feel like she is not as important as her male coworkers? The effect is the same. Even if you are right, it is STILL sexist for being so fundamentally inconsiderate. It's not about being feminist. It's about being humane. There shouldn't even be a term called "feminist", the default should be to treat women as having equal status as men. It shouldn't be a revelation in need of a special name to believe that. And the fact that you can't see it means you're prone to it as well, and probably towards other groups of people beyond just "women". It's the fallacy of the super-villain: nobody thinks they themselves are the bad guy. Bad behavior is a matter of habit and attitude and prejudice is a matter of lack of respect. Sexism doesn't end with banning sexually overt behavior in the office. Sexism isn't even about sex any more than racism is about slavery. I would even go so far as to say that a man who talks over a woman in a meeting, but listens intently while another man is talking, is more sexist than a man who flirts with the women in the office. It's about power, and using ones power to give favor to some and deny favor to some others, for no reason other than "they aren't like me".
- knowitall 13y ago
  My point is that the issue is completely blown out of proportion. I consent that this ad is targeted at men, so it shows things that appeal to men (not the least women being attracted to them). Would you say that in itself is a problem? I think it is ridiculous to make that out to be a problem, because it would imply that no ads would be allowed to target men or women specifically. If you show me that there are no ads trying to entice women into computing it is an entirely different matter (and presumably you would find few such ads in the 70ies - I don't claim they weren't biased). But dissecting a single ad doesn't make sense. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of sexual attraction and desire. I'm sure you can find lots of ads where women do x (whatever, use some perfume, drive some car, whatever), and as a result men carry them on their shoulders or buy them a house, or whatever appealed to women at the time (maybe also men stripping for them, no idea). That would be "sexist" in the same way, except that it is ridiculous to complain about that because the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex simply is a fundamental part of human existence.

varjag 13y ago

> How is it implied that she is not a programmer? It's in the text. "More programmers to care for". The programmer in the text is male, not gender neutral. The picture shows a model performing intimate function (most would consider a hug and a touch on the chest intimate) on a male doing white-collar work. Unless you are specifically set on splitting hairs, there isn't much to argue about here.

knowitall 13y ago
Huh? I'm not a native speaker, but I think "programmers" is a gender neutral expression. No doubt the ad is targeted at men, but that alone doesn't make it sexist.
- varjag 13y ago
  1. It can be inferred the photo illustrates "caring" for programmers, as accompanying text suggests. 2. The programmer mentioned in the text is male (mentioned once by name and then as "He is seen here welcomed back"). Welcoming back obviously consists of caressing his body, which supports point 1. Now I make no statements about cultural circumstances, tradition, the zeitgeist of the 60s and so on. Just that sexism is objective concept denoting unequal treatment of genders, and this photo is steretoypically sexist; so much in fact that it's hopeless to even play No True Scotsman here.
  - knowitall 13y ago
    As I said, it is an ad targeted at men, and I admit it plays to some stereotypes. However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes". The message is simply "become a programmer and women will like you" - a message that would appeal to men. For women there would have to be another ad. Probably there wasn't one - I don't claim the 70ies weren't biased. Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today.
    - varjag 13y ago
      > However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes". Nor do I. That would've been misogynistic, and my whole initial point was this ad is sexist but not misogynistic. > Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today. I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today (although there's a whole subgenre of porn about it).
      - knowitall 13y ago
        "I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today" Lol - I meant without the caressing. The caressing part is obviously over the top, which is typical for advertising. I don't think anybody responding to that app would expect to actually be caressed by women. There are ads were people's clothes fly off because somebody chews a chewing gum. Of course the sexism police will think they are sexist, too, but I'd suggest it is also owed to the shortness of the spots. It's not easy to say "women/men will love you" in a few seconds without being ridiculous. I'd just like to question the idea that showing a person as sexually attractive is demeaning or reducing that person to whatever. It's just one aspect of life.

moron4hire 13y ago

"He is seen here being welcomed back", in an overtly provocative pose. "More programmers to care for", indicating that this is her duty in the company, to "care" for the programmers. And it doesn't matter if it was meant to be parsed that way. No, the add doesn't outright say "We hire prostitutes to suck your dick at your desk." It doesn't have to say that. But it is being parsed that way by a large number of people. From the looks of this thread, you are in the minority of people who think it is not that way. So what is the difference if it was or was not meant to make a female viewer feel like she is not as important as her male coworkers? The effect is the same. Even if you are right, it is STILL sexist for being so fundamentally inconsiderate. It's not about being feminist. It's about being humane. There shouldn't even be a term called "feminist", the default should be to treat women as having equal status as men. It shouldn't be a revelation in need of a special name to believe that. And the fact that you can't see it means you're prone to it as well, and probably towards other groups of people beyond just "women". It's the fallacy of the super-villain: nobody thinks they themselves are the bad guy. Bad behavior is a matter of habit and attitude and prejudice is a matter of lack of respect. Sexism doesn't end with banning sexually overt behavior in the office. Sexism isn't even about sex any more than racism is about slavery. I would even go so far as to say that a man who talks over a woman in a meeting, but listens intently while another man is talking, is more sexist than a man who flirts with the women in the office. It's about power, and using ones power to give favor to some and deny favor to some others, for no reason other than "they aren't like me".

knowitall 13y ago
My point is that the issue is completely blown out of proportion. I consent that this ad is targeted at men, so it shows things that appeal to men (not the least women being attracted to them). Would you say that in itself is a problem? I think it is ridiculous to make that out to be a problem, because it would imply that no ads would be allowed to target men or women specifically. If you show me that there are no ads trying to entice women into computing it is an entirely different matter (and presumably you would find few such ads in the 70ies - I don't claim they weren't biased). But dissecting a single ad doesn't make sense. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of sexual attraction and desire. I'm sure you can find lots of ads where women do x (whatever, use some perfume, drive some car, whatever), and as a result men carry them on their shoulders or buy them a house, or whatever appealed to women at the time (maybe also men stripping for them, no idea). That would be "sexist" in the same way, except that it is ridiculous to complain about that because the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex simply is a fundamental part of human existence.